Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #153

intertextuality wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain. Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain. How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what…

> How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible? What matters for ethics is the effects things have on people. You generally don't have to know how something works in order to understand what effects it has--someone who does understand how it works can figure that out and tell you. For example, if you had to decide between on the ethics of using a…

Post by mwfunk » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 3:15 AM UTC

suppressingfire wrote: post #363

mwfunk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the Rust Belt, the southeast, and California for big chunks of my life and you're right on about regionalisms. For language or social norms in general, all that matters is how something's taken, not what was meant by it. If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phra…

"you all" or "youse" can work as reasonable alternatives. I haven't tried "tons" since I've never actually heard it "used in anger." One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.